Re: [isabelle] Interesting example of blast looping in 2016-1
On 09/02/17 17:30, Lawrence Paulson wrote:
> Your problem is not first-order and therefore lies outside the scope of blast. As I recall, there was a minor change connected with problems of that general sort. That particular example is unfortunate, but it is easily provable using other proof methods, including auto, fast and best.
>> On 9 Feb 2017, at 04:30, Rafal Kolanski <xs at xaph.net> wrote:
>> âjâset w. Â j â True â set w
For the historical record, bisection produces the following result.
The first bad revision is:
user: paulson <lp15 at cam.ac.uk>
date: Fri Jun 10 13:54:50 2016 +0100
summary: Better treatment of assumptions/goals that are simply
Boolean variables. Also cosmetic changes.
Maybe there is more to say about it.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail (Mailman edition) and